Would be nice if someone/group with deep pockets could afford to put a full page ad in major papers one day each week to replay the Cheney/Bush lies, misrepresentations and outright bad judgment/guesses.

To paraphrase Cheney's comments:

" . . . we're not going to sit by and let [Cheney and Bush] rewrite history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them."

And it's available for purchase on Amazon.com. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9568355812/qid=1134058249/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/002-3127380-4084833?n=130

Bob

While this debate is about a hypothetical, let's not lose sight of the fact that we make roughly equivalent ethical choices all the time. When we purchase a car, for example, and choose the "bells and whistles" and other glamour features not necessary to get us from point to point in relative safety, we are in effect choosing between buying those extras versus saving lives. The ethical choice, in my opinion, would be to give the differential amount to Doctors Without Borders, or whatever life saving group one chooses, than to spend the money on the unnecessary upgrades to the cars. I hope everyone is looking at their every day purchases and weighs the alternative uses of those funds. I suspect it's easier for us to get exercised about hypotheticals than confront the ethical consequences of our own decisions.

I have to admit that I've had the fantasy of doing just what those kids did, namely getting some friends together and doing a rolling roadblock at the speed LIMIT. But the possible dangers alone kept me from going beyond even considering it.

However, I occasionally actually stick to the speed limit, staying in the right lane of a multi-lane highway, and it's quite amazing to see people still get irked when they come up behind me and have to pass to maintain their clearly over the speed LIMIT speeds.

IF people would voluntarily stay at the speed limit, this country could save substantial amounts of oil and expenditures. The decrease in MPGs for every 5 MPH above 55 or so is quite amazing. Also, I suspect that a substantial number of lives could be saved if people drove at the speed limit and more uniform speeds were maintained overall.

But I don't hold out much hope for change. The savings in time for exceeding the speed limit are probably slim in the grand scheme of things, but everyone seems compelled to rush everywhere nonetheless, and for those with the powerful SUVs and cars, I suspet there's a lot of ego involved in just showing who's the fastest, biggest, and toughest on the road. "Slowpokes" (i.e., civilly obedient folks) just don't impress anyone.

I certainly agree with Sara Miles concerns about the pathetic decision by the New York court. But the decision should give heterosexuals pause too. The majority opinion implies that marriage is for raising children and indirectly that sex is for procreation. Apparently a law limiting marriage to those who wish to raise children would be a "bad idea" but only because it allegedly would require "intrusive inquiries and arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing." It seems to me that following the "thinking" of the majority opinion, anyone having children should be forced into marriage. Although this type of retrograde thinking about who can marry or who must marry likely still has appeal to a segment of the population, I don't think most people would be comfortable with the conclusions that could be reached following further the arguments of the majority.

BTW, if anyone has not read the full decision, I recommend reading it, particularly the articulate, solidly reasoned dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Kaye.

I agree with Joan Walsh's comments about the McClellan flap, except that where she writes "Personally, I'd prefer that former Republican functionaries change the world by telling the truth, however belatedly,. . .," I would change "Republican" to "political." Unfortunately, working for many kinds of organizations we can easily get sucked into the "bubble" of that organization and, in any case, there are many incentives to spin that organization's position and, unfortunately, many disincentives (like firing!) against being less than balanced and objective. As painful as it might be, the likes of McClellan and others do a great service by sharing their hindsight and perspectives with the public.